Taxpayers `Misled` On State Building Costs

March 28, 1986|By John McCarron, Urban affairs writer.

The agency that built the State of Illinois Center ``lost control`` of parts of the project and misled taxpayers into thinking the building would cost only half its eventual price, according to a report issued Thursday by the state auditor general`s office.

The state`s Capital Development Board knew a year before construction began that the building would cost at least $150 million, not the $75 million or $89 million mentioned in early press releases.

``Those figures, in fact, misled people,`` said C. Edward Gilpatric, a senior state auditor, in his presentation to the Legislative Audit Commission, the watchdog unit that ordered the audit 16 months ago.

But Gilpatric also said there is no evidence to indicate state officials intended to mislead the public when they publicized cost figures in 1970 and 1980 that did not include $50 million for land aquisition, planning, furniture and other items.

The total cost eventually reached $173 million, according to the audit, and additional millions may yet be needed to correct troublesome areas, such as the center`s faulty air-conditioning system.

Gary J. Skoien, who took over as executive director of the development board in 1983, said he disagreed with some of the auditors` conclusions, but embraced others ``that lay to rest public misconceptions about the building.`` ``Everybody involved ought to be proud,`` said Skoien, calling attention to a section of the audit that compares the cost of the state building favorably with that of other structures recently built downtown.

He conceded, however, that ``in hindsight`` his agency`s early publicity

``should have included every dollar.``

The audit shows, however, that even if all items were included, the ultimate cost of the project exceeds the development board`s original estimate by 15 percent.

The audit blames much of the extra cost on mistakes by the board and its hired architects, engineers and construction managers. Those mistakes include a lack of control over ``change orders,`` failure to penalize contractors who made costly mistakes and an overall ``passive approach`` in overseeing the project.

The auditors also warned that the 46 state agencies in the center may have moved in too soon--before contractors certified their work as complete

--thereby jeopardizing the state`s right to hold contractors responsible for defective equipment.

More than a year ago, the commission asked Auditor Gen. Robert Cronson to audit the project. Presumably, lawmakers wanted an independent expert to uphold or debunk the partisan political claims that have swirled around the project ever since Gov. James Thompson handpicked its glass-skinned, open-interior design in late 1979.

Former U.S. Sen. Adlai Stevenson, the governor`s opponent in November`s gubernatorial election, often mentions that the building was grossly over budget and built behind schedule. Stevenson also has called attention to the building`s nagging technical problems, such as high inside noise levels and the air-conditioning breakdown that allowed temperatures in some offices to reach the high 90s for a few days last summer.

On balance, however, Thompson`s critics may find less support in Cronson`s report for their arguments than they might have hoped for.

The report is less damning, for instance, than last year`s state audit of the $60 million, or 23 percent, cost overrun on the McCormick Place expansion project. That report, along with others by House and Senate committees, led to the sacking of the convention center`s governing board.

Thompson and his allies can even take comfort in several aspects of the new audit.

The report, for instance, includes a sharply worded, point-by-point rebuttal by the devlopment board`s Skoien.

Skoien tries to refute nearly every finding in the 87-page report, going so far as to contend, ``There have been no cost overruns on this project.``

And the legislature was kept fully informed about cost increases, he said, through annual appropriation requests made during the four-year construction period.

A more convincing argument on behalf of the project may have been made by the auditors` own survey of downtown construction costs.

They compared the state center`s price to the costs of nine other large buildings recently completed downtown. The state`s price--$143 per usable square foot--was less than that of four privately financed buildings. Three others were only slightly less expensive, and only two were built for $120 or less per square usable foot.

Thompson also may have benefited from the auditor`s decision not to evaluate the state center`s design, but only its implementation in the hands of the development board. Nor did auditors estimate rents that will have to be paid by state agencies not accommodated by the new building, which is loaded with visual pizazz but short on floor space.

Critics of the ``big blue tub`` have charged that its horseshoe configuration around a 17-story central atrium was a waste of space.